It is part of innovation (You have to name it for common discussion). It is ok if it's just re-cooked innovation (revival or evolution). It is also ok if one innovation hurts another innovation (competition).
Names are only useful when they reasonably describe what they apply to. "Game 3.0" and "Web 2.0" don't do that. Not even remotely. The very fact that they're constantly changing and being used to mean different things by different people only proves that they're useless.
Behaviour can be trained and change (over a long time). e.g., For the upcoming Spore game:
Your quote is not really relevant to your original point. That said, I agree that behavior can change. However, behavior is not the most important thing here, it's *motivation* that is the driver for user generated content. In that arena, I think the only effort out there that I have any hope of seeing something interesting come from is LBP. I think some really awesome, revolutionary stuff *could* come in its wake, but we won't know until it's been out for awhile.
Most importantly, as the concept becomes clearer with more exploration, Game 3.0 definition will morph with time, but user generated content will still remain as user generated content.
This is what I was talking about earlier in my post. You first say that it's a useful word because it provides granular meaning. Then in the same statement, you say that it's constantly changing. The two are at odds.
